Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Wills > Abatement and Ademption > Flashcards

Abatement and Ademption Flashcards

1
Q

Abatement

A

-Occurs when there is not enough money in an estate to fulfill all the gifts/ promises made in a will

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Ademption

A

When a specific gift given to someone in a will no longer forms part of the estate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Courts will do anything they can

A

To avoid ademption

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What do the courts base their decision on?

A

Testators intention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

They operation only

A

In absence of a contrary intention on the face of the will (ex: specific schedules for abatement written in)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

If they don’t express contrary intention

A

Common law applies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

When estate insolvent

A

Testators debts must be paid. Insolvent=insufficient funds to pay all debts, creditors entitled according to their priority (general creditors last pro rata)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

When solvent but insufficient to make all gifts

A

assets go to pay debts first and then go in order of abatement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Abatement order

A 
First to go: residue (personal and real property) 
Next: general legacies 
Next: Demonstrative legacies 
Next: special gifts of personalty
Last: Specific gifts of realty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Gifts eaten up on what basis

A

Pro rata

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Pro rata

A

Each takes equal hit in their category

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Lindsey v Waldbrook

A

Facts: Not enough money to satisfy all gifts. All looked the same but one had additional instruction saying to be invested for education of grandson

Ratio: Only clear language that demonstrates a clear intention will avoid pro rata schedule of abatement (not enough yours is slightly different)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Determining type of gift

A

-Testators themselves can say what kind of gift it is

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

General Legacy

A
  • Gift payable out of the general assets of an estate
  • Legacy= gift of money/ direction to use money to buy something specific (like a gift card)
  • Directs them to go buy it and if they can’t give money equivalent
  • General assets= residue BUT not a residual gift (specific amount)
  • No attributed source- source is residue
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Ademption of General legacy

A

They do not adeem because they are not anything specific

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Re Miller

A

Facts: Each minister and orange lodge member one share to Ontario Brewing Co- not possible to get the stocks

Ratio: considered general legacies. Whether he owns the thing he is giving is not determinative of general/specific what matters is what you write. Wording: specific- “my” “that I currently own”. Bank account, more specific the account is described the more specific gift.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

If classified as specific

A
  • Not scared of ademption: instruction to buy it or cash value
  • Scared of abatement: after residue its first to go
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Demonstrative gifts

A
  • Golden goose (best of both worlds)
  • Gifts that have an attributed source to be paid primarily out of a certain asset
  • Ex: cottage to be sold and proceed to kids
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Specific gifts

A

Either specific property or if it is money they are to be paid specifically out of a certain source and only that source

20
Q

Consequences of classification as demonstrative gift

A
  • If no longer exists it does not deem it becomes a super general legacy (satisfied out of residue)
  • Still protected quite a bit from abatement
  • If both abatement and ademption it will be satisfied before general and residue
21
Q

Why is demonstrative special?

A

Because if source doesn’t have enough they don’t deem they can dip into residue

22
Q

Re Webster

A

Facts: testator left 3000 pounds to be paid to son out of the share of my capital and loans in the business of Webster. His partnership was worth much less than 3000 pounds.

Ratio: not good case to follow found demo even though looked like specific . If clear testator wanted gift to be given regardless of funding.

23
Q

Celentano Estate v Ross

A

Facts: left 2 gifts to the shriners to be paid in US funds taken from her US bank accounts

Ratio: not general because there is a clearly identified source. Testator gave no indication that gift was to fail upon insufficiency of funds so not specific. Absent clear language to show its specific it will be deemed demonstrative.

24
Q

Specific gifts

A

-Gifts of identifiable property
-Object testatore has described with distinction and specifically to distinguish it from all other assets in estate
-Doesn’t matter if they didn’t own it at time of will so long as it was owned at some point before death
-Only gifts subject to ademption (if no longer in estate)
-

25
Q

Colbertson v Colbertson

A

Facts: legacies bequeathed out of a very specific fund (farmland) if not enough to cover amount each person take in apportionate share. Sold before death and put into general bank account

Ratio: if you not only specified the source but say only from that source, specific. Specific because specific source and limiting language. Cannot dip into co-mingled funds.

26
Q

Residuary gift

A
  • Gift of residue (different from general cause basically just says “the rest of my estate”)
  • Any gift that fails lapses into the residue and residual gifts don’t adeem
27
Q

Exceptions to Ademption

A

(1) Date from which the will speaks
(2) Tracing
(3) Subsequent conveyance of portion

28
Q

Date from which will speaks

A
  • Common law= speak at time will was made (what was owned then)- a lot of foolery here
  • Most provinces have reversed this: now speaks from date of testators death

Court to interpret gifts in a will as referring to property owned by testator at the date of his death

29
Q

Contrary intention to date the will speaks (NB Wills Act)

A

Case law says contrary intention is (1) express contrary intention (2) if an object is so specifically described in a will that it “cannot be added or taken away from so as to retain its form”

30
Q

Ex of express contrary intention for date will speaks

A

Leave daughter house I live in now if I move she gets no house

31
Q

Re Rutherford

A

Facts: left “house and premises on Martin St” to wife and kids but after writing will he purchased more land around the house.

Ratio: If a gift is capable of growing or being added to like land/a house then it won’t qualify as an interpretation of so specific that change would make it not retain its form. Just saying house and premise not specific enough

32
Q

Example of so specific that “cannot be added or taken away from so as to retain its form”

A

To daughter 1973 Camero- hard to grow/ expand

33
Q

Re Bird

A

Facts: testator owned lot 57 and had house 14 Mitchell Ave in will to her son, after will written city condemned and rebuilt to 14 and 16 Mitchell Ave

Ratio: Contrary intention on the face of the will- she meant to give lot 57 only reason its two is because city made her

34
Q

How does date at which the will speaks apply to people?

A

Common law rule: at the time of the will. SO if you marry and write a will and then re-marry it goes to your first husband.
-21(2) only applies to property not people

35
Q

Use of temporal words

A

To avoid the general, T must describe the property by referring to it as the property of a certain description she owns at the date of the will. Using the words “now” or “then” can be held to be contrary intention. Can be contrary intention to date the will speaks

36
Q

Re Forbes

A

Facts: Conveyance of property where I now reside in the town of Wiarton. After writing this he bought a new one and inter vivid gifted one from will to her

Ratio: when looking at contrary intention cannot look at surrounding circumstances just the face of the will (can’t look at inter vivos gift). Used temporal language to describe gift, took this as him meaning it to be read at the date of the will. No new house for her.

37
Q

Tracing

A
  • Doctrine of CL which saves gifts from adeeming if can be traced to location where they have been kept separate and apart from other funds
  • Specifically deals with gifts of money from proceeds of sales
  • If, for ex proceeds of sale of cottage when alive, put in bank account and not co-mingled may be able to trace
38
Q

2 caveats to tracing

A

(1) In NB there is a provision that deals with this-

(2) Decisions made by people with powers of attorney

39
Q

NB provision that deals with tracing

A

allows for tracing proceeds of sale even if co-mingled. If money exists you are entitled. ONLY to proceeds of sale not to specific money in specific account.

40
Q

Decisions made by people with power of attorney with tracing

A

2 kinds of POA (finance and care). Have to sell house to pay for moms care. NB Informed persons act allows for tracing of property sold/ re-invested by POA acting in good faith

41
Q

Subsequent conveyance of portion

A

If testator sold a gift that he left to someone in a will or contracted to something or had a right to property that doesn’t exist at time of death- whatever rights left from property is gifted to the person

Best example: insurance proceeds

42
Q

DeMombro

A

Facts: house/ contents to 2 people. Sold house but sale not complete when she died. Who gets funds?

Ratio: goes to 2 people bequeathed the house.

43
Q

Insurance proceeds

A

Subsequent conveyance of property applies to this- have a right to these

44
Q

Re Hunter

A

Facts: testators house destroyed in fire and testator died in it.

Ratio: CL says adeem and insurance to residue but because of statute insurance proceeds go to person who was left the house

45
Q

Re Clements Estate

A

Facts: testator died in fire and house destroyed

Ratio: died from smoke inhalation so it vested and then burned, insurance to beneficiary of house. Good case to use if in jurisdiction that doesn’t have legislation for this.

46
Q

Equitable conversion

A
  • Deals with disputes between two parties one of which had inter vivos dealings with testator and one in a will
  • Conversion means that the court will find that even if a particular gift still is in the physical possession of an estate at the time of death, if it has been the subject of a contract or a gift (inter vivos) anything that is an agreement that can be legally enforced against the estate then it will be presumed to be converted (adeem)
  • Has to be a legally enforceable contract
47
Q

Ex of equitable conversion

A

you are left antique car in will, in middle of deal to sell car and he dies before deal done. Who gets it?

Wills (26 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions